In the biological community, biodiversity is seen as the mark of a stable ecosystem. There is little debate whether it should be protected because lack of biodi

In the biological community, biodiversity is seen as the mark of a stable ecosystem. There is little debate whether it should be protected because lack of biodiversity is repeatedly being shown to reduce the fitness of the other species in that ecosystem. It's the same rationale for using a permaculture versus a monoculture in agriculture. It's "politicized" almost entirely because of misinformation campaigns that have torn down the search for truth and the trust of science. Instead, government leaders (especially in the current whitehouse administration in the USA) are actively destroying scientific communities, running them out of non-partisan offices, destroying scientific research, defunding other research, and restricting access to publications. It's not that there isn't a universal agreement, there actually is a bipartisan appreciation of the endangered species act (https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/8/12/20802132/endangered-species-act-trump-weakening https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/8/12/20802132/en...) and it seems most people appreciate what it brings. So yes, it's definitely being "politicized" as the objective science behind it is being destroyed.